You're just not man enough to admit you've been decieved by Al Gore's profiteering off the sound concerns about environment and the state of human society.

Who is "man enough" is exactly the point. It's very interesting that people make all these claims about Al Gore and then, when push comes to shove, they aren't even confident enough to bet their avatar on it.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. You, and others, would talk out your ass about Al Gore all day long if i let you.

Accountability. Get some.

You are still using your old avatar. When are you going to man up? _________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George OrwellIt just keeps getting better

Last edited by Old School on Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

OK so you do accept the bet? Let's wait and see who else comes on board before we settle it. If I lose, I'll serve my avatar sentences one after the other.

What bet?

How about this bet.... Which is growing faster; Algore's energy consumption, or his waistline?_________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George OrwellIt just keeps getting better

You said: "he has a carbon footprint the size of Texas" and "he has a huge carbon footprint".

It's really easy. There are no tricks. If you think you know what you're talking about, I challenge you (and everyone else who made similar remarks) to bet your avatar on it. If you are not sure, you should stop saying it. Those are the options.

Before you make your decision to go mano a mano with McGruff the Mighty, take a good look at those pictures of Gore's "beach house" (two miles from the sea, on a hill...) and ponder if it's better to follow Big Dave's lead, last seen running away just as fast as his little legs could carry him.

You said: "he has a carbon footprint the size of Texas" and "he has a huge carbon footprint".

It's really easy. There are no tricks. If you think you know what you're talking about, I challenge you (and everyone else who made similar remarks) to bet your avatar on it. If you are not sure, you should stop saying it. Those are the options.

Before you make your decision to go mano a mano with McGruff the Mighty, take a good look at those pictures of Gore's "beach house" (two miles from the sea, on a hill...) and ponder if it's better to follow Big Dave's lead, last seen running away just as fast as his little legs could carry him.

how would you decide this? how far from the ocean or how big his carbon foot print is?

I can't see how his carbon footprint couldn't be huge. I don't have the means that Gore does, but just cause you have it doesn't mean you burn it. I mean a 6500 sq foot house with a pool is going to suck bonkers energy. And that's his second house?

What the fuck am I doing? I got a 1100 sq foot house for four, bike to work and am vegetarian. he almost certainly cancel me out.

You said: "he has a carbon footprint the size of Texas" and "he has a huge carbon footprint".

It's really easy. There are no tricks. If you think you know what you're talking about, I challenge you (and everyone else who made similar remarks) to bet your avatar on it. If you are not sure, you should stop saying it. Those are the options.

Before you make your decision to go mano a mano with McGruff the Mighty, take a good look at those pictures of Gore's "beach house" (two miles from the sea, on a hill...) and ponder if it's better to follow Big Dave's lead, last seen running away just as fast as his little legs could carry him.

how would you decide this? how far from the ocean or how big his carbon foot print is?

I can't see how his carbon footprint couldn't be huge. I don't have the means that Gore does, but just cause you have it doesn't mean you burn it. I mean a 6500 sq foot house with a pool is going to suck bonkers energy. And that's his second house?

What the fuck am I doing? I got a 1100 sq foot house for four, bike to work and am vegetarian. he almost certainly cancel me out.

Cancel you and everyone else on this forum combined.

mcgruff is putting all his stock into algore buying his way out of his environmental terrorism.

You see, mcgruff believes in two sets of rules._________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George OrwellIt just keeps getting better

If you can prove (in a way that convinces 75% of people in here) that Gore has a zero or negative carbon footprint, then I'll change my avatar to something humiliating (like a nice picture of Al Gore). If you can't, then you change yours to a nice picture of Rush Limbaugh. That's a fair bet. Will you take it?

Predictably, it is not a fair bet.

Bollocks. You made the claim earlier that Gore's carbon footprint was probably zero or close to it. What's not fair about it?

OK let's go for a walk. The same walk Al does every at night after another heavy session in his local dive: the Stonehouse bar of San Ysidro Ranch.

First you'll need to open google maps. Search for "San Ysidro Ranch Montecito". Got it? OK now zoom in to the car park south of the ranch where we'll meet our man.

Big Al arrives red-faced and not too steady on his feet. The cops insist he's too drunk to drive home so we set off on foot, west along East Mountain Drive.

Incidentally, you can drop your little google man on the fork in the road. Right there. Got it?

We'll have to pause for a moment while big Al takes a leak in the middle of the road. All done? OK off we go, taking the right hand fork. Soon, we pass a white pickup parked on the left. Al starts cackling and giggling and creeps over to let down the tyres but a yard light comes on so we have to scarper.

Soon we come to a group of vehicles parked next to a new build house and - oh hell no! -
a Snorkel cherry picker parked by the roadside. Al's face just lights up "WAAAHOOOOO!" and he rushes over to try to start it up.

We could be here for some time.

Luckily, we catch sight of someone walking down the road towards us so we have to abandon the cherry picker and try to act normal. The guy is standing at the side of the road at the spot where we take a right turn up the hill. "Thfuuckyuulloooknat" mumbles Al as we amble past and start to climb up the winding road.

It's steep and Al goes quiet, thankfully. He's breathing heavy now and looking a bit green. After turning a few corners we get to 1502, "Casamar" where Al demands we stop for a breather, leans against the wall for support, and promptly pukes up all over his neighbour's driveway. They're probably used to it by now.

Not far to go now, so we take an arm each and help him along another 25 yards to the brown gate on the left - that's Al's Montecito home. He fumbles about a bit trying to open the lock then gives up and just lies down in front of the gate.

So: let's leave Al to sleep it off and zoom out in google maps. You can see we're on the side of a hill about two miles from the ocean. Definitely not in any danger from sea-level rise.

mcgruff is putting all his stock into algore buying his way out of his environmental terrorism.

Exactly. His carbon consumption may be large - although not necessarily out of proportion with his occupation - but his carbon footprint is zero because of offsets.

How we would audit that to the satisfaction of all parties I'm not sure but, if Al Gore is as carbon neutral as he claims to be, he is clearly not a hypocrite.

As I said earlier (which you conveniently ignored) non hypocritical leaders lead by example. When he tells me I need to lower my energy usage, Mr. Gore should do the same by lowering his even lower than mine.

You know and understand this, you are just being obtuse for your own reasons._________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George OrwellIt just keeps getting better

mcgruff is putting all his stock into algore buying his way out of his environmental terrorism.

Exactly. His carbon consumption may be large - although not necessarily out of proportion with his occupation - but his carbon footprint is zero because of offsets.

How we would audit that to the satisfaction of all parties I'm not sure but, if Al Gore is as carbon neutral as he claims to be, he is clearly not a hypocrite.

As I said earlier (which you conveniently ignored) non hypocritical leaders lead by example. When he tells me I need to lower my energy usage, Mr. Gore should do the same by lowering his even lower than mine.

You know and understand this, you are just being obtuse for your own reasons.

I think so. he wants people to reduce energy consumption. I can understand if he uses more than many people on account of being a public figure, but he could also have a flat in manhatten and reduce his footprint.

Not all of us can live the high life and buy offsets. We are in this together and only together will we solve this problem. That's simply not the message I am getting from him. I.e. if you can buy offsets, get a house and heat it with coal!

His carbon consumption may be large - although not necessarily out of proportion with his occupation - but his carbon footprint is zero because of offsets.

How we would audit that to the satisfaction of all parties I'm not sure but, if Al Gore is as carbon neutral as he claims to be, he is clearly not a hypocrite.

Ignoring whether or not offsets are a sham, occupational justification is little more than a class system._________________You're jumping to conclusions, so I can't keep up with you. Go on without me, I'll just slow you down.

You framed things so I lose if I can't provide proof of Gore's carbon budget but, if proof cannot be found one way or the other, the bet is void and no-one wins or loses.

You made the claim, now you won't bet that you can prove your claim is true? So I guess we know you were just bull-shitting then, don't we.

How about this. No need for "proof", per se. How about if you can just manage to convince 75% of the people in here that Gore's carbon footprint is zero or close to it? Will you take that bet?

Keep in mind that if you're going to include "offsets", then you must also acknowledge that Gore's carbon footprint includes that of his share of all the enterprises in which he is part owner. You do know that he's a partner in a widely-invested venture capital firm not at all focused on the green world, and has significant stock in many other non-greenish enterprises, right?

Gore is a big-money fat-cat capitalist. Green investments and "offsets" or not, he has a carbon footprint the size of a small town.

So how about it? Do you have the eggs for this, or were you just talking out your ass.

It's in the summary for policy makers. "While developing countries are expected to experience larger percentage losses, global mean losses could be 1-5% GDP for 4°C of warming."

I see two problems with that. Losses in agricultural production will probably be much greater than realised at the time the report was made and the economic effects of food scarcity will be amplified by a complex mix of "fear" factors such as hoarding and even armed conflict. However, I'd be the first to say that comments about scientific issues should be based on real, peer-reviewed science so it's up to me to substantiate my views properly. In the meantime, I have to watch Zombieland.

Note that the summary for policymakers also says this:

Quote:

It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. The net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. In some locations and among some groups of people with high exposure, high sensitivity and/or low adaptive capacity, net costs will be significantly larger than the global aggregate

non hypocritical leaders lead by example. When he tells me I need to lower my energy usage, Mr. Gore should do the same by lowering his even lower than mine.

You know and understand this, you are just being obtuse for your own reasons.

It doesn't matter how much energy you use so long as your carbon footprint is low.

In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth Gore makes some very modest proposals about the actions ordinary people can take: using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, using less hot water when possible. He doesn't call for deep sacrifice or major lifestyle changes. He doesn't tell people to move into smaller homes.

So I think there are two problems here. You've invented a Gore-shaped bogeyman with a huge carbon footprint which he doesn't actually have telling people to do things he doesn't actually tell them to do. I'm open to the idea that maybe he should do more but I really don't think what he's doing right now is so unreasonable.

I'm not exaggerating when I say it can take tens of millions of years for biodiversity to recover from an extinction event.

So what? Biodiversity is orthogonal to food availability. If one species dies, another expands to eat whatever it was eating, and be eaten by something else. That's why mammals are roaming over the face of the Earth by the billions instead of hiding under the roots of trees.

Furthermore, human beings are, by far, the most adaptive creatures the planet has ever seen. We already can't survive in our current climate without artificial adaptations such as clothing, shelter, etc., yet we live all over the planet, in all kinds of climates.

I'm glad you're not exaggerating. I'm not exaggerating either, when I say climate change is one of the most significant drivers of evolution of land-based terrestrial life. Evolution is a good thing. In fact, it's what is thought to have caused the emergence of not only anthropoid hominids but H. sapiens itself. Where would Humanity be now if Australopithecus afarensis had the means to avoid evolution?

By the way, please don't talk about Gore and science in the same thread. Gore is like a very large 5th grader going around lecturing people about science. When he finally has a heart attack, they'll probably replace him with Beyoncé or Paris Hilton, either of who probably know more about science than he does.

Biodiversity is orthogonal to food availability. If one species dies, another expands to eat whatever it was eating, and be eaten by something else.

It doesn't work like that. Species are all intimately connected in complex webs of dependencies. If a whole ecosystem goes down - and many will - there's nothing left to eat and nothing left to try to eat it. Or, if you strip out a range species from an ecosystem it becomes much less productive per square kilometre. There's more damage done than a simple tally might suggest

However, this is really a separate discussion to the human food supply, although there is some overlap wherever we go hunting or foraging for non-domesticated species.

BoneKracker wrote:

By the way, please don't talk about Gore and science in the same thread. Gore is like a very large 5th grader going around lecturing people about science.